Main Content

The Symbiotic Relationship of Science and Technology
in the 21st Century

A. Emerson Wiens

Considering the range of human experience, both science and
technology are relatively new fields of study. Certainly, primitive
societies had some elementary understanding of nature, at least those
elements that were most observable and obvious in their everyday
experiences. Thousands of years before Christ, natural processes were
used to produce cheese and beer, but without sophisticated instruments,
there was little or no understanding of the science behind these
processes. Evidence also shows that simple machines and tools were used
long before Newton's laws were formulated and the principle of
mechanical advantage elucidated.

Science before the scientific revolution was typically an
intellectual pursuit, and the idea of using scientific knowledge to
improve the quality of life through technological manipulation and
product design was rarely pursued. What little innovation and invention
occurred was typically done by artisans and craftsmen who knew little
of scientific theory. Some of the most elaborate mechanisms were
created to entertain the aristocracy and had little practical
value.

Besides being hampered by crude research instruments, scientific
discovery and understanding were also restricted by social institutions
that valued conformity and status quo over discovery and exploration.
This conservative philosophy led to the trial of Galileo as a heretic
in 1633 for defending Copernican theory. Copernicus had challenged the
concept that the earth is the center of the universe, a concept that
was at the core of established religion. Just 34 years earlier,
Giordano Bruno had been burned at the stake for questioning orthodox
opinion in mathematics, theology, and philosophy. But science gained
acceptance as exploratory tools improved, more observations were made,
and ideas were promulgated via the printing press. And the church had
to modify its perception of the universe.

The obvious connection between scientific principles and practical
applications (technology) developed during

the scientific revolution and was expanded in the industrial
revolution. In recent times, many leaders and the public have developed
an unflagging faith in the science-technology enterprise. Pytlik,
Lauda, and Johnson (
1978
) asserted that this
faith led the public to believe that "every flaw affecting the human
was definable and could be solved through science and technology. To
many, science seemed infallible, making people tolerant of its
byproducs but unable to assimilate its true meaning" (
p. 4
).

Rustum Roy (
1990
), a leader in the National
Association for Science, Technology, and Society, argued that
historically, technology led to science more often than science led to
technology. Surprisingly, recent studies have indicated that most
technological knowledge is still built, not on science, but on previous
technological knowledge. One study (Project Hindsight), conducted by
the U.S. Defense Department, examined 710 events that were essential in
the development of 20 major weapon systems during the 20 years
following World War II. The investigators found that only two events (a
minuscule .3% of the total) were the result of basic scientific
research (
Volti, 1992
).

Another study analyzing British firms reported similar findings.
However, a more recent analysis found a median delay of nine years
between a scientific finding and its conversion to technology, a
finding that would have modified the results of Project Hindsight
somewhat if the researchers would have extended their study over a
longer period (
Volti, 1992
). While it is true
that applied science is generally technology (i.e., it is designed to
extend human capability or modify an environment), it is also true that
much technology that exists and is practiced is not applied science in
the strictest sense of the term.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that, increasingly, the
paths of science and technology are not separate or unidirectional as
indicated in the Project Hindsight study but illustrate a relationship
of mutual dependency, that is, symbiotic. Today we can give many
examples where science and technology complement each other, where one
does not consistently lead or follow the other. It is the contention of
the author that few fields of endeavor illustrate the symbiotic
relationship between science and technology more clearly than
biotechnology and, more specifically, genetic engineering.

Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering

Even in name, biotechnology is a marriage of science and technology.
By definition, biotechnology is a multidisciplinary applied science
that draws on knowledge from biology, chemistry, physics, and
engineering to use living organisms to make or modify products, to
improve plants or animals, or to develop micro-organisms for specific
uses (
Office of Technology Assessment, 1984
).
Biotechnology has applications in a number of fields: medicine,
agriculture, botany, waste treatment, marine and aquatic fields, and
food and beverages (
Seenath, 1988
).

The focus of this paper, however, is primarily on one segment of
biotechnology, that of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering draws
its theory from the scientific field of genetics, which consists of
three main branches: (a) Mendelian, classical, or transmission
genetics, which is a study of the transmission of traits from one
generation to the next; (b) molecular genetics, which is the study of
the "chemical structure of genes and how they operate at the molecular
level" and (c) population genetics, which addresses the "variation of
genes between and within populations" (
Weaver
& Hedrick, 1992, p. 4
). Genetic engineering relies primarily on
the techniques and knowledge identified in the first two branches.

Gregor Mendel is usually given credit for starting the field of
classical genetics in 1865 when he reported the findings of the
scientific experiments he had done regarding the flower color and seed
shape of the common garden pea. But part of the history of
biotechnology and genetic engineering must include the instrument
makers such as Janssen, Huygens, Leeuvenhoek, and Hooke who, in the
16th and 17th centuries, developed the early models of the light
microscope and other laboratory equipment so necessary for examination
and discovery. These technologies were crucial for the microbiologists,
biochemists, and other scientists who have developed the area of study
as we now know it. Figure 1 provides a timeline of selected scientific
discoveries and technological developments in biotechnology and genetic
engineering.

The history of genetics thus far recounted and illustrated in the
first part of Table 1 has been a story of scientific discovery with
technology supporting the effort by constantly improving the
instruments for research. One of the first commercial applications
(applied science = technology) of Mendel's findings, however, was the
hybridizing of corn that began in the 1920s. This can be considered
genetic engineering in crude form (i.e., providing for the transmission
of traits).

The selective breeding of farm animals followed suit. Through
careful records of milk output, dairy managers could identify the best
breeding stock. Since the availability of the preferred breeding stock
was limited, or rather distance made selective breeding impractical,
artificial insemination became the process of choice that raised the
milk output and quality of dairy herds, the weight gain efficiency of
beef cattle, and "redesigned" hogs for a more health-conscious
public.

The relationship between science and technology in these formative
years is illustrated by Hurd's (
1994
)
statement: "Science is a tool for generating new technologies and
technology is a means for extending the frontiers of science" (
p. 130
). The use of more sophisticated technology, such
as the Hubble space telescope, often leads to "unexpected observations
that will require new theories or the modification of older theories to
provide a valid interpretation" (
p. 130
).

Despite the importance of Mendel's work, it was not until the first
decade of this century that the study of genetics resumed with
considerable vigor. With better optics and research equipment, Thomas
H. Morgan and associates (1910-1916) determined that genes are arranged
in a linear order on the chromosomes and that genes could suddenly
undergo a permanent change or mutation. Gene mutation was identified as
the primary mechanism that drives evolution.

Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering, sometimes called genetic manipulation, is
defined as

the artificial recombination of nucleic acid molecules in the test
tube, their insertion into a virus, bacterial plasmid, or other
vector system, and the subsequent incorporation of the chimeric
molecules into a host organism in which they are capable of continued
propagation. (
Genetic Engineering
,
1997, p. 762
)

When Berg succeeded in his recombinant DNA experiments in 1972, and
Boyer and Cohen successfully cloned DNA with a plasmid, the process had
been identified that would become a multimillion-dollar industry in
manufactured proteins. The secret to the procedure was the discovery by
molecular biologists of enzymes called restriction ento-nucleases.
These enzymes have the ability to "cut" DNA into reproducible
fragments. Many restriction enzymes have been cataloged according to
where they cut DNA molecules and which genes are isolated. Figure 1
illustrates gene splicing or recombinant DNA (rDNA), the process by
which undesirable genes are replaced by preferred genes.

Table 1. Timeline of the Science and
Technology Events Leading to Genetic Engineering

The Symbiotic Relationship

The symbiotic relationship was not initially apparent. But as the
20th century progressed, the technology and science of biotechnology
became so intertwined that it became increasingly difficult to
distinguish between the two. The American Association for the
Advancement of Science (
1989
) saw this
relationship in a broader context as characteristic of current science,
technology, and mathematics. In its recommendations for elementary and
secondary education,
Science for All
Americans
, the following statement summarizes this
perspective:

It is the union of science, mathematics, and technology that forms
the scientific endeavor and that makes it so successful. Although
each of these human enterprises has a character and history of its
own, each is dependent on and reinforces the others. (
p. 25
)

One of the shifts in the old science-technology paradigm that
strengthened the symbiotic relationship was the identification of new
"tools" for performing the work of both science and technology. These
toolsretroviruses, adenoviruses, and bacteria plasmids-are not
mechanical but biological in nature, too small to be seen by the naked
eye. Hence, the methods of technology and science have become so
similar in genetic engineering that the primary means of distinguishing
them is by the
purpose
of a
given enterprise, that is, whether the process was being done strictly
to gain new scientific information or to make a marketable product. But
even this distinction is artificial since research scientists, employed
by biotechnology industries, continue to add to the body of scientific
knowledge while developing new bio-related products and techniques. If
a commercial company identifies a new retrovirus for opening a human
cell, or develops the process for manufacturing an important
therapeutic human protein in a vat of bacteria, or identifies a plasmid
vector that is capable of crossing the brain barrier, the company has
extended our understanding of the biology and chemistry of the human
body and provided another tool for conducting research.

Genentech, founded in 1976, was one of the new companies that was
formed exclusively to exploit the commercial potential of genetic
engineering. Genentech established an early success pattern by
producing insulin outside the human body in 1978 (licensed to Eli
Lilly); the human growth hormone to counter dwarfism in 1979;
interferon, a tumor-reducing protein, in 1981; and more. Figure 2
illustrates the process by which these proteins are produced. Well over
100 firms now exist in the genetic engineering business, and the Patent
and Trademark Office is inundated with patent applications for
genetically manipulated plants, animals, and substances. By May 1995,
11,815 patents for genetically engineered substances had been approved
(
Woodward, 1995
).

Genetic engineering is moving in several directions at once. The
commercialization of genetically manipulated plants and animals began
in the late 1970s. Transgenic mice and
Drosophila
fruit flies were produced in
1981. The first patent for a genetically engineered animal was granted
in 1988 for
Oncomouse
, a mouse
that carries a cancer-gene. The mice and fruit flies were obviously
developed to aid disease research, but a number of genetically
manipulated improvements have also been made in animals and crops for
agricultural profitability.

A corn hybrid genetically altered to resist European corn borers was
field tested by Ciba Seeds in 1992. Soybean seed is now available that
has been genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosphate herbicides
such as Roundup®, which kills virtually all vegetation (
Monsanto, 1992
). Monsanto has also developed cotton
plants that are protected against the cotton bollworm and potatoes that
are virus and insect resistant. Without question, the success of these
experiments required a sound understanding of prior science, and the
development of these animals and plants has contributed much to our
scientific understanding.

Figure 1. rDNA technology.
Courtesy of Monsanto.

Courtesy of Monsanto

Instead of using bacteria or fungus as hosts to produce human
proteins, researchers at Genzyme Corporation and Tufts University have
managed to insert a human gene for TPA-a protein to reduce blood
clotting in heart attack victims-into a goat's DNA so that the nannies
are able to produce TPA in their milk. The process by which this is
done requires that a segment of human DNA containing the TPA-producing
gene is combined in the lab with the goat's mammary control DNA. This
modified gene is microinjected into a fertilized goat's egg. A "foster
mother" receives the manipulated egg. Enough offspring express the
desired gene to make the concept of transgenic animals feasible and
potentially highly profitable. Milk is not the only way to produce
human-needed drugs in transgenic animals. The DNX company has produced
transgenic pigs that carry the gene for human hemoglobin and produce
the human cells in their blood (
Glanz,
1992
).

One phase of genetic engineering is called gene therapy, the goal of
which is to insert DNA into human cells to either replace genes that
are not functioning properly or to create proteins for such purposes,
or stimulating cellular immunity. More than 3,200 genetic defects,
potential targets for gene therapy, have been cataloged. Among the most
common candidates for gene therapy are cystic fibrosis, AIDS, diabetes,
cancer, hemophilia, emphysema, sickle-cell anemia, and Tay-Sachs
disease (
Begley, 1995
). In 1990, the first
government-sanctioned human gene therapy began with a child receiving
modified cells for severe combined immune deficiency (SCID). Scientists
and biotechnologists alike were very optimistic about the potential
success of this new means of treating genetic diseases. By early 1998,
the National Institutes of Health had approved 222 experimental
procedures, 190 for testing therapeutic approaches (
Henig, 1998
). However, Friedman noted in 1997 that "no
approach has definitively improved the health of a single one of the
more than 2,000 patients who have enrolled in gene therapy trials
worldwide" (
p. 96
).

Figure 2. Human insulin production.
Courtesy of Monsanto.

Final Comments

The symbiotic relationship between science and technology is
illustrated convincingly by the parallel and collaborative development
of genetics and genetic engineering. This relationship has produced an
increasingly powerful force in society with ethical, legal, and
political ramifications. Combined, they will be a powerful lobbying
group for government funds as well as for favorable legislation.

We are, at our foundation, a technological society, a technological
culture. Technology-to manipulate, modify, and exploit-is so
fundamental to our outlook and to our process of life in the United
States that it is inseparable from our conceptions and understanding of
life. Our use of and dependenceon technology is pervasive, and yet our
understanding of technology in society is often elementary (
Wiens & Wiens, 1996
). A discussion of genetic
engineering would not be complete without reference to some of the
concerns raised by those who believe we must advance with caution, for
example, Rifkin (
1998
), Volti (
1995
), Wheeler (
1993
), and
Zallen (
1998
).

Biotechnology and genetic engineering will not eliminate much of
medicine as we know it, but will revolutionize the treatment of many
diseases and offer the potential for changing human beings in ways only
contemplated previously in science fiction. There will be increasing
pressure to allow genetic enhancement (the ability to "improve" the
appearanceor abilities of otherwise healthy individuals) for those who
can afford it. With the emphasis on the Human Genome study and genetic
engineering, it is tempting to fall into the "nature is everything"
trap, failing to remember the contribution of nurture.

W. French Anderson, the director of the first attempt at direct gene
therapy, noted that genetic enhancement is "going to happen, and nobody
can stop it" (cited in
Kiernan, 1997, p.
A17
). This deterministic attitude suggests that this technology is
beyond our control.

Humans live in an ever-changing social environment, very different
from that of nonhuman animals. Nurture and the social environment are
critical factors in human development. Ian Wilmut, the Scot who brought
us Dolly, the cloned sheep, stated, "Why would we want to clone
ourselves? Even if we truly desire an exact duplicate of someone
the plain truth is that we won't get it We are more than our
genes" (cited in
Zabludoff, 1998, p. 6
).
This argument is expanded by Cohen and Stewart (1994) in an article
titled "Our Genes Aren't Us." The authors contended that "contrary to
popular belief, our DNA alone doesn't determine who-or even what-we
are" (
p. 78
).

The potential for dramatic change in what it means to be human is
present in certain areas of genetic manipulation. Without a doubt, new
technology creates new ignorance. We do not fully comprehend the risks
and changes that may be delayed, unintended, and unrelated to the
central purpose of genetic engineering procedure. We must proceed with
caution in those areas where our understanding is limited.

Dr Wiens is a Professor in the Industrial Technology Department at
Illinois State University, Normal. He is a member of Gamma Theta
Chapter of Epsilon Pi Tau and has received the Honorary's Laureate
Citation.

References

American
Association for the Advancement
of Science. (1989).
Science for all
Americans.
Washington, DC: Author.